Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T07:19:00.800Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effective Altruism and Systemic Change

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 June 2019

Antonin Broi Open the ORCID record for Antonin Broi [Opens in a new window]
Antonin Broi*
Affiliation:
Sorbonne University
*
[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

One of the main objections against effective altruism (EA) is the so-called institutional critique, according to which the EA movement neglects interventions that affect large-scale institutions. Alexander Dietz has recently put forward an interesting version of this critique, based on a theoretical problem affecting act-utilitarianism, which he deems as potentially conclusive against effective altruism. In this article I argue that his critique is not as promising as it seems. I then go on to propose another version of the institutional critique. In contrast to Dietz's version, it targets not the core principles of effective altruism but rather some important methodological assumptions made in EA research, namely diminishing marginal returns and low-hanging fruits. One key conclusion is that it may be time for critics of effective altruism to shift their attention from the theoretical core principles of effective altruism towards the methodological tools actually employed in practice by the EA movement.

Keywords

effective altruismutilitarianismcooperationinstitutional changediminishing marginal returns
Type
Article
Information
Utilitas , Volume 31 , Issue 3 , September 2019 , pp. 262 - 276
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 <https://www.centreforeffectivealtruism.org>.

2 Gabriel, Iason, ‘Effective Altruism and its Critics’, Journal of Applied Philosophy 34 (2016), pp. 457–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 For a short overview of some responses of the EA movement to the challenge, see <https://concepts.effectivealtruism.org/concepts/institutional-change>.

4 Lisa Herzog, ‘Can “Effective Altruism” Really Change the World?’, OpenDemocracy, <https://www.opendemocracy.net/transformation/lisa-herzog/can-effective-altruism-really-change-world> (2016).

5 Srinivasan, Amia, ‘Stop the Robot Apocalypse’, London Review of Books (24 September 2015), pp. 3–6Google Scholar.

6 Another important consideration to bear in mind is that these initial institutional critiques date back to a few years ago. Given the rapid intellectual evolution of the EA movement, they might aim at an obsolete version of effective altruism.

7 For example, Animal Charity Evaluators (ACE), the main EA-aligned evaluator in animal advocacy, currently recommends ‘Legal and Legislative Work’ as high-priority cause area. See <https://animalcharityevaluators.org/advocacy-interventions/prioritizing-causes/causes-we-consider>.

8 Jeff McMahan, ‘Philosophical Critiques of Effective Altruism’, The Philosopher's Magazine 73 (2016), pp. 92–9.

9 Berkey, Brian, ‘The Institutional Critique of Effective Altruism’, Utilitas 30 (2018), pp. 143–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

10 Dietz, Alexander, ‘Effective Altruism and Collective Obligations’, Utilitas 31 (2018), pp. 106–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

11 Regan, Donald, Utilitarianism and Co-Operation (Oxford, 1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

12 Regan, Utilitarianism and Co-operation, p. 12.

13 Regan, Utilitarianism and Co-operation, p. 4.

14 This game is similar to the Footballers’ Problem (studied for example by Sugden, Robert, ‘The Logic of Team Reasoning’, Philosophical Explorations 6 (2003), pp. 165–81)CrossRefGoogle Scholar and identical to the well-known Hi-Lo game, studied by Bacharach, Michael, Beyond Individual Choice: Teams and Frames in Game Theory, ed. by Gold, Natalie and Sugden, Robert (Princeton, 2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

15 For an introduction to team reasoning, see Gold, Nathalie, ‘Team Reasoning, Framing and Cooperation’, Evolution and Rationality: Decisions, Co-Operation and Strategic Behaviour, ed. Samir, by Okasha and K. G. Binmore (Cambridge, 2012), pp. 185–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

16 Besides the reply that I develop in more detail, it is also interesting to note that Dietz's critique, which builds on a fundamental issue concerning act-utilitarianism and presupposes a specific conception of rationality, is unlikely to be a faithful interpretation of what critics have in mind.

17 Don Ross, ‘Game Theory’, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2018/entries/game-theory/> (2018), sect. 2.5.

18 Ahmed, Arif, Evidence, Decision, and Causality (Cambridge, 2014), ch. 4CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

19 Browne, Katharine, ‘Why Should We Team Reason?’, Economics and Philosophy 34 (2018), pp. 185–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

20 Browne, ‘Why Should We Team Reason?’, p. 13.

21 Dietz, ‘Effective Altruism and Collective Obligations’, p. 9.

22 Dietz, ‘Effective Altruism and Collective Obligations’, p. 7.

23 This stands in sharp contrast to Dietz's coordination game, where efforts to communicate are apparently not considered as actions in the same way that A and B are.

24 In addition to frequent online activity, for example on social media or on the EA Forum (<https://forum.effectivealtruism.org>), real-life events like the EA Global conference are good opportunities for cooperation and sharing of ideas.

25 Dietz, ‘Effective Altruism and Collective Obligations’, p. 10.

26 In this article I consider ‘systemic change’ and ‘institutional change’ as interchangeable.

27 The critique that I am going to develop here could be made in a formal way, by using a mathematical framework of cost-benefit analysis of interventions. While this would have the advantage of being systematic and providing well-defined necessary and sufficient conditions for the problems I am going to discuss, it would exceed the scope of this article. Here I will simply offer an intuitive grasp of an idea that may be promising to investigate further.

28 Apart from the last one, these are all examples of interventions that GiveWell, the main EA-aligned evaluator working on global poverty, recommends at the present time.

29 To define precisely what is meant by ‘large’ would unfortunately take me too far. Roughly speaking, it is to be understood as large enough to trigger systemic change.

30 Interventions that have a high probability of failing are at the core of OpenPhilanthropy's hits-based conception of philanthropy (see <https://www.openphilanthropy.org/blog/hits-based-giving>). Funding Clinton's campaign is an example of intervention that was likely to fail (if Clinton loses the election), but not obviously an example of systemic intervention in my sense, as I have shown in the previous section.

31 Of course, it is not clear what is meant by ‘significant’, but the assumption is usually thought to apply to most prominent cause areas at this time, in particular global poverty.

32 Robert Wiblin, ‘How to Compare Different Global Problems in Terms of Impact – 80,000 Hours’, 80,000 Hours, <https://80000hours.org/articles/problem-framework/> (2017).

33 Todd, Benjamin, ‘Want to Do Good? Here's How to Choose an Area to Focus on’, 80,000 Hours, <https://80000hours.org/career-guide/most-pressing-problems/> (2017).

34 <https://www.ted.com/talks/will_macaskill_how_can_we_do_the_most_good_for_the_world?>.

35 MacAskill, William, Doing Good Better: How Effective Altruism Can Help You Make a Difference (New York, 2015), ch. 4Google Scholar.

36 <https://www.effectivealtruism.org/handbook/>.

37 Cotton-Barratt, Owen, ‘Prospecting for Gold’, Effective Altruism Handbook, 2nd edition (Oxford, 2016)Google Scholar, <https://www.effectivealtruism.org/handbook/> pp. 16–44, at 25.

38 Cotton-Barratt, ‘Prospecting for Gold’, p. 26.

39 See for example Emily Clough, ‘Effective Altruism's Political Blind Spot’, Boston Review, <https://bostonreview.net/world/emily-clough-effective-altruism-ngos> (14 July 2015).

40 Luxemburg, Rosa, Reform or Revolution (New York, 2006)Google Scholar.

41 For example, Mathew Snow, ‘Against Charity’, Jacobin Mag, <https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/08/peter-singer-charity-effective-altruism/> (2015), drawing on Gomberg, Paul, ‘The Fallacy of Philanthropy’, Canadian Journal of Philosophy 32 (2002), pp. 29–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

42 Francione, Gary L., Rain without Thunder: The Ideology of the Animal Rights Movement (Philadelphia, 1996)Google Scholar.

43 For example, corporate campaigns for cage-free eggs have been strongly supported by EA organizations like OpenPhilanthropy or ACE. The interpretation proposed here presupposes that the abolitionist strategy may naturally be associated with (radical) systemic change, and (neo)-welfarist strategies with non-systemic, or less systemic, change. While there is some reason to do so (abolitionism does purport to change the property status of animals, which is a radical cultural and legal change), it should be pointed out that it is debatable to categorize abolitionist and (neo)-welfarist strategies in this way. Indeed, on the one hand, (neo)-welfarist strategies are mostly about corporate outreach and policy influencing, which may count as fairly systemic actions; on the other hand, Francione tends to deny the systemic status of abolitionism, as he promotes ‘incremental eradication of the property status of animals’ (Francione, Rain without Thunder, p. 4, italics in the original).

44 Kissel, Joshua, ‘Effective Altruism and Anti-Capitalism: An Attempt at Reconciliation’, Essays in Philosophy 18 (2017), pp. 1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 18.

45 Francione, Rain without Thunder.

46 I am particularly grateful to Laura Green for extensive comments and proofreading. I would also like to thank Cédric Paternotte and the participants in the 2016 and 2018 International Society for Utilitarian Studies Conferences for helpful feedback, as well as the members of EA France for many interesting discussions on this topic.